DOCSLIB.ORG

Short- and Long-Term Solutions for Storage and Treatment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Short- and Long-Term Solutions for Storage and Treatment C ALOOSAHATCHEE WATERSHED R EGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES Short- and Long-term Solutions for Storage and Treatment Version 3.0 Revised: July 15, 2016 Caloosahatchee Watershed Regional Water Management Issues E NDORSEMENTS Prepared by: Endorsed by: Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation Snook and Gamefish Foundation Conservancy of Southwest Florida Ding Darling Wildlife Society Audubon Florida Audubon of the Western Everglades Audubon of Southwest Florida CALOOSAHATCHEE WATERSHED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES STORAGE & TREATMENT PROGRESS SUMMARY JULY 15, 2016 Goals and Objectives The purpose of this document is to summarize and place into context the projects and policies needed to restore freshwater flows to the Caloosahatchee River and estuary. It outlines a number of the challenges we must overcome in order to be successful in restoring the Everglades and Northern Estuaries. This document is not meant to be all- inclusive of Everglades and Northern estuaries projects; but rather its focus is on those projects that will provide the greatest short and long-term benefits to the Caloosahatchee estuary. Introduction The coastal communities of Lee County are routinely impacted by freshwater discharges from Lake Okeechobee and excessive stormwater runoff from the Caloosahatchee watershed. The latest event occurred during the winter and spring of 2015/16, at the peak of Southwest Florida’s tourism season. A strong El Niño that developed in 2015 and extended into 2016 resulted in rainfall throughout south Florida exceeding 400% of the historic average. This resulted in water managers releasing billions of gallons of freshwater to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. During the peak of the freshwater flows (late January–early February), the Caloosahatchee estuary received daily average flows exceeding 14,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) measured at the Franklin Lock (S-79). The Caloosahatchee continued to receive flows exceeding the high-flow harm threshold (2,800 cfs) through the middle of April 2016. These damaging flows were the result of runoff from the Caloosahatchee watershed and the regulatory discharges from Lake Okeechobee. As with past high-volume Lake releases in 2005-2006 and again in 2013, the excessive freshwater discharges impacted the ecology of the Caloosahatchee estuary and coastal waters of Lee County. This in turn impacted the quality of life of our residents, regional property values, revenue of area businesses, and it continues to have a lasting effect on our local economy. This problem persists because of inadequate water storage within the Kissimmee, Lake Okeechobee, and Caloosahatchee watersheds and our inability to treat and convey more water south into Everglades National Park and Florida Bay where it is desperately needed. 1 | Page Flood control projects, channelization, and other land use changes that have occurred throughout Central and Southern Florida during the past century have resulted in a water management system that is very different from its original state. The highly- engineered, man-made system that exists today delivers water to the coast very quickly, with little to no treatment. This has resulted in the Caloosahatchee estuary receiving too much water during the wet season and not enough during the dry season. The water that is delivered is often laden with excessive nutrients that can stimulate harmful algal blooms. These blooms can degrade aquatic habitats and the quality of our beaches. What is at stake? In Lee County, tourism generates more than $3 billion annually. Real estate values in Lee County were more than $87 billion as of 2015.1 A 2013 poll by the Lee County Visitor and Convention Bureau indicated that 94% of all visitors to Lee County identified our beaches as our most attractive asset.2 Local water quality can influence consumer confidence, impacting tourism and our local economy. Too much or too little freshwater delivered to the coast can also effect critical estuarine resources such as seagrasses, oysters and economically important finfish and shellfish. The combined impacts on the local economy and the ecology of our waters can greatly influence the quality of life for Lee County residents and visitors. The economic impacts can also extend beyond the borders of Lee County. Similar to the effect that the BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill had on Florida’s economy, areas that are not physically impacted by the freshwater releases from the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers can be affected indirectly. For example, when the media reports on the impacts of the freshwater discharges they often refer to the “beaches of Southwest Florida,” which includes a much larger geographic area than just Lee County. A similar situation occurs on the east coast when they report on impacts from the St. Lucie River in Martin County. Lingering media reports on the internet and continually expanding distribution through social media can have a lasting impact on South Florida’s tourism. In 2015, the Florida Association of Realtors completed a study to assess the impact of water quality and clarity on property values in Lee and Martin counties from 2010 through 2013. The study determined that the ongoing problem of polluted water in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers and estuaries has resulted in a negative impact on property values. The study determined that water quality and clarity had an impact of $541 million on Lee County’s aggregate property values and $428 million on Martin County’s aggregate property values.3 What is needed to address the problem? A number of Everglades planning studies have been completed to date which outline many of the projects needed to restore the quality, quantity, timing and distribution of 2 | Page freshwater flows to the Everglades and coastal estuaries. These studies include the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) 4 , the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) 5 and the River of Grass Planning Process (ROGPP)6. The latest planning process, the River of Grass Planning Process, outlined storage needs of approximately 1,000,000 to 1,350,000 acre-feet of water storage north and south of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 1), 200,000 acre-feet east of the Lake, and 400,000 acre-feet of storage west of the Lake.7 Implementing this storage is critical to reducing the damaging high-flow discharges to the estuaries and providing dry-season flows to the Caloosahatchee. Figure 1. Comparison of north and south storage needed to reduce estuary impacts, SFWMD 2009 River of Grass Planning Project In March 2015, the University of Florida Water Institute completed an independent study, commissioned by the Florida Legislature through the Senate Select Committee on the Indian River Lagoon and Lake Okeechobee Basin, titled “Options to Reduce High Volume Freshwater Flows to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries and Move More Water from Lake Okeechobee to the Southern Everglades”.7 The authors of the study concluded that “…the solution to providing relief to the estuaries is enormous increases in storage and treatment of water both north and south of the lake.” Their work also suggested that the state and federal governments should “accelerate funding and complete existing approved projects”, but that “Existing and currently authorized storage and treatment projects are insufficient to achieve these goals.” “The path forward requires significant long-term investment in the infrastructure of the South Florida hydrologic system.” The study cited the most recent water storage estimates 3 | Page reported by other Everglades planning efforts as 400,000 acre-feet of water in the Caloosahatchee watershed, 200,000 acre-feet in the St. Lucie watershed, and approximately 1,000,000 to 1,350,000 acre-feet of storage north and south of Lake Okeechobee. For a comprehensive overview of the projects needed to restore appropriate freshwater flows to the Northern estuaries, we direct readers to the University of Florida Water Institute’s Independent Technical Review titled Options to Reduce High Volume Freshwater Flows to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries and Move More Water from Lake Okeechobee to the Southern Everglades.7 How will Everglades Restoration help restore appropriate freshwater flows to the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary? The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is the blueprint to restore the Everglades and freshwater flows to the Northern Estuaries. The Plan was authorized by Congress in 2000 through the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA 2000). The Plan includes a suite of projects designed to store, treat and convey freshwater south to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay; thereby, reducing the harmful freshwater flows to the estuaries. CERP includes more than 68 civil works projects to be designed and implemented over a 30 year period. The total cost of implementing the plan was originally estimated at $8.2 billion. 8 The Plan specifies a 50/50 cost-share between the State of Florida and the federal government. The original plan called for more than 217,000 acres of new reservoirs and wetland-based treatment areas and over 300 underground aquifer storage and recovery wells.8 As of late 2014, eight CERP projects were authorized, the majority of the land necessary for restoration projects under CERP had been acquired, and significant progress has been made on non-CERP activities including improved water deliveries to Everglades National Park.9 As of 2010, it was estimated that CERP will take more than 30 years and cost $13.5 billion to complete. 10 More recent cost estimates have CERP costs closer to $16.4 billion.11 What are the challenges to restoring the Everglades and appropriate freshwater flows to the Northern Estuaries? Restoration of the Everglades and Northern Estuaries faces a number of logistical and political challenges. Due to the large geographic scale of the project, encompassing more than 18,000 square miles and including 16 counties in central and southern Florida, it is the largest wetland restoration in the world (Figure 2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Preliminary Manatee Mortality Table with 5-Year Summary From: 01/01/2019 To: 11/22/2019
    FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MARINE MAMMAL PATHOBIOLOGY LABORATORY 2019 Preliminary Manatee Mortality Table with 5-Year Summary From: 01/01/2019 To: 11/22/2019 County Date Field ID Sex Size Waterway City Probable Cause (cm) Nassau 01/01/2019 MNE19001 M 275 Nassau River Yulee Natural: Cold Stress Hillsborough 01/01/2019 MNW19001 M 221 Hillsborough Bay Apollo Beach Natural: Cold Stress Monroe 01/01/2019 MSW19001 M 275 Florida Bay Flamingo Undetermined: Other Lee 01/01/2019 MSW19002 M 170 Caloosahatchee River North Fort Myers Verified: Not Recovered Manatee 01/02/2019 MNW19002 M 213 Braden River Bradenton Natural: Cold Stress Putnam 01/03/2019 MNE19002 M 175 Lake Ocklawaha Palatka Undetermined: Too Decomposed Broward 01/03/2019 MSE19001 M 246 North Fork New River Fort Lauderdale Natural: Cold Stress Volusia 01/04/2019 MEC19002 U 275 Mosquito Lagoon Oak Hill Undetermined: Too Decomposed St. Lucie 01/04/2019 MSE19002 F 226 Indian River Fort Pierce Natural: Cold Stress Lee 01/04/2019 MSW19003 F 264 Whiskey Creek Fort Myers Human Related: Watercraft Collision Lee 01/04/2019 MSW19004 F 285 Mullock Creek Fort Myers Undetermined: Too Decomposed Citrus 01/07/2019 MNW19003 M 275 Gulf of Mexico Crystal River Verified: Not Recovered Collier 01/07/2019 MSW19005 M 270 Factory Bay Marco Island Natural: Other Lee 01/07/2019 MSW19006 U 245 Pine Island Sound Bokeelia Verified: Not Recovered Lee 01/08/2019 MSW19007 M 254 Matlacha Pass Matlacha Human Related: Watercraft Collision Citrus 01/09/2019 MNW19004 F 245 Homosassa River Homosassa
    [Show full text]
  • The Caloosahatchee River Estuary: a Monitoring Partnership Between Federal, State, and Local Governments, 2007–13
    Prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District The Caloosahatchee River Estuary: A Monitoring Partnership Between Federal, State, and Local Governments, 2007–13 By Eduardo Patino The tidal Caloosahatchee River and downstream estuaries also known as S–79 (fig. 2), which are operated by the USGS (fig. 1) have substantial environmental, recreational, and economic in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lee value for southwest Florida residents and visitors. Modifications to County, and the City of Cape Coral. Additionally, a monitor- the Caloosahatchee River watershed have altered the predevelop- ing station was operated on Sanibel Island from 2010 to 2013 ment hydrology, thereby threatening the environmental health of (fig. 1) as part of the USGS Greater Everglades Priority Eco- estuaries in the area (South Florida Water Management District, system Science initiative and in partnership with U.S. Fish and 2014). Hydrologic monitoring of the freshwater contributions from Wildlife Service (J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Ref- tributaries to the tidal Caloosahatchee River and its estuaries is uge). Moving boat water-quality surveys throughout the tidal necessary to adequately describe the total freshwater inflow and Caloosahatchee River and downstream estuaries began in 2011 constituent loads to the delicate estuarine system. and are ongoing. Information generated by these monitoring From 2007 to 2013, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in networks has proved valuable to the FDEP for developing total cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protec- maximum daily load criteria, and to the SFWMD for calibrat- tion (FDEP) and the South Florida Water Management District ing and verifying a hydrodynamic model.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Document Regarding Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Section 303(D) List Amendments for Basin Group
    DECISION DOCUMENT REGARDING FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION’S SECTION 303(d) LIST AMENDMENTS FOR BASIN GROUP THREE Prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Water Management Division May 12, 2010 Florida §303(d) List Decision Document May 12, 2010 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 3 II. Statutory and Regulatory Background 6 A. Identification of Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLSs) for Inclusion on the Section 303(d) List 6 B. Consideration of Existing and Readily Available Water Quality-Related Data and Information 6 C. Priority Ranking 7 III. Analysis of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Submission 7 A. Florida’s Group Three 2010 Update 8 1. Florida’s Water Quality Standards and Section 303(d) List Development 8 2. List Development Methodology and Data Assessment 10 3. Public Participation Process 11 4. Consideration of Existing and Readily Available Water Quality-Related Data and Information 12 B. Review of FDEP’s Identification of Waters 14 1. Review of FDEP’s Data Guidelines 15 2. No Pollutant Identified for Impairment 18 3. Aquatic Life Use Impairment 18 4. Primary and Secondary Recreational Use Support 23 5. Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Support 24 6. Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health 25 1 Florida §303(d) List Decision Document May 12, 2010 C. Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters 26 1. FDEP’s Addition of Water Quality Limited Segments 26 2. Section 303(d) List Delistings 26 3. Other Pollution Control Requirements 27 4. EPA Identified Waters 30 5. Priority Ranking and Targeting 30 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Caloosahatchee
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management SOUTH DISTRICT • GROUP 3 BASIN • 2005 Water Quality Assessment Report Caloosahatchee FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Division of Water Resource Management 2005 Water Quality Assessment Report Caloosahatchee Water Quality Assessment Report: Caloosahatchee 5 Acknowledgments The Caloosahatchee Water Quality Assessment Report was prepared by the Caloosahatchee Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as part of a five-year cycle to restore and protect Florida’s water quality. Team members include the following: Pat Fricano, Basin Coordinator T. S. Wu, Ph.D., P.E., Assessment Coordinator Gordon Romeis, South District Karen Bickford, South District Robert Perlowski, Watershed Assessment Section Dave Tyler, Watershed Assessment Section Ron Hughes, GIS James Dobson, Groundwater Section Janet Klemm, Water Quality Standards and OFWs Editorial and writing assistance provided by Linda Lord, Watershed Planning and Coordination Production assistance provided by Center for Information, Training, and Evaluation Services Florida State University 210 Sliger Building 2035 E. Dirac Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800 Map production assistance provided by Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center Florida State University University Center, C2200 Tallahassee, FL 32306-2641 For additional information on the watershed management approach and impaired waters in the Caloosahatchee Basin, contact Pat Fricano Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 [email protected].fl.us Phone: (850) 245-8559; SunCom: 205-8559 Fax: (850) 245-8434 6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Caloosahatchee Access to all data used in the development of this report can be obtained by contacting T.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) Bmaps Table of Contents Introduction
    Florida Statewide Annual Report on Total Maximum Daily Loads, Basin Management Action Plans, Minimum Flows or Minimum Water Levels, and Recovery or Prevention Strategies, June 2018 Appendix A: Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) BMAPs Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................2 Caloosahatchee Estuary BMAP....................................................................................................4 Lake Okeechobee BMAP ............................................................................................................17 St. Lucie River and Estuary BMAP ...........................................................................................45 Page 1 of 68 Florida Statewide Annual Report on Total Maximum Daily Loads, Basin Management Action Plans, Minimum Flows or Minimum Water Levels, and Recovery or Prevention Strategies, June 2018 Introduction In 2007, the Florida Legislature created the NEEPP, which expanded LOPA, which was created in 2000 and found in Section 373.4595, F.S., to include the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers and Estuaries. During the 2016 legislative session, the Florida Legislature amended NEEPP (Section 373.4595, F.S.) to strengthen provisions for implementing the BMAPs and further clarify the roles and responsibilities, coordination, implementation, and reporting efforts among the three coordinating agencies: South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD),
    [Show full text]
  • US Army Corps of Engineers
    Southwest Florida Feasibility Study: US Army Corps A Comprehensive Watershed Plan 1 2 2 of Engineers R Kathleen McCallion , Lacy Shaw , Tim Gysan Jacksonville District ¹Everglades Partners Joint Venture, Jacksonville, FL, ²U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL Functional Group 5- Corkscrew Watershed Component Title Description Functional Group 41 Functional Group 5 Number Functional Group 56 Purpose of the Southwest Florida Comprehensive Watershed Master Land acquisition, hydrologic Corkscrew Functional Group 28 Functional Group 41- South Caloosahatchee Ecoscape restoration, habitat restoration, based Functional Group 56- Yucca Pens 28 Woodstork Flow- Component on woodstork biology and feeding Title Description Component ways Number Functional Group 28 - Babcock Ranch Restoration Plan (SWFCWMP) Title Description needs. Number Provide a connection between Acquisition and hydrologic restoration Component Corkscrew Charlotte Harbor, Charlotte Harbor Title Description Re-hydrate lakes and in the form of culverting, road Number The Southwest Florida Feasibility Study was authorized as a component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Regional Buffer Preserve and the Babcock-Webb removal, berm removal, ditch filling Yucca Pens associated wetlands (Lake Flirt, Ecosystem Wildlife Management Area. Key piece Land acquisition, hydrologic restoration, BC23 and any removal of any features (Charlotte Bonnet and Lettuce) by placing Watershed 53 to establish landscape scale The purpose of the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study SWFCWMP
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Florida's Numeric Nutrient Standards
    Implementation of Florida’s Numeric Nutrient Standards Document Submitted to EPA in Support of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Adopted Nutrient Standards for Streams, Spring Vents, Lakes, and Selected Estuaries March 2013 6BTABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of Document ............................................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 The Hierarchical Approach ..................................................................................................... 1 Nutrient Criteria for Lakes ..............................................................................................................2 Nitrate-Nitrite Criterion for Spring Vents .........................................................................................4 Using Measures of Flora and Fauna and Regional Nutrient Thresholds in Streams ............................5 Stream Definition ...................................................................................................................5 Implementation of NNC in Streams ........................................................................................6 Floral Evaluation for Determining Achievement of NNC ..........................................................8 Evaluating Algal Mats ........................................................................................................... 10 RPS Decision Key..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in Florida Magnitude and Frequency
    UNITED STATES EPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR- ., / GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FLOODS IN FLORIDA MAGNITUDE AND FREQUENCY By R.W. Pride Prepared in cooperation with Florida State Road Department Open-file report 1958 MAR 2 CONTENTS Page Introduction. ........................................... 1 Acknowledgements ....................................... 1 Description of the area ..................................... 1 Topography ......................................... 2 Coastal Lowlands ..................................... 2 Central Highlands ..................................... 2 Tallahassee Hills ..................................... 2 Marianna Lowlands .................................... 2 Western Highlands. .................................... 3 Drainage basins ....................................... 3 St. Marys River. ......_.............................. 3 St. Johns River ...................................... 3 Lake Okeechobee and the everglades. ............................ 3 Peace River ....................................... 3 Withlacoochee River. ................................... 3 Suwannee River ...................................... 3 Ochlockonee River. .................................... 5 Apalachicola River .................................... 5 Choctawhatchee, Yellow, Blackwater, Escambia, and Perdido Rivers. ............. 5 Climate. .......................................... 5 Flood records ......................................... 6 Method of flood-frequency analysis ................................. 9 Flood frequency at a gaging
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Preliminary Manatee Mortality Table
    FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION MARINE MAMMAL PATHOBIOLOGY LABORATORY Preliminary Manatee Mortality Report From: 01/01/2011 To: 12/31/2011 COUNTY DATE FIELDID SEX SIZE (cm) WATERWAY LOCATION PROBABLE CAUSE Brevard 01/01/2011 MEC1101 M 180 Indian River Melbourne Beach Natural: Cold Stress St. Lucie 01/01/2011 MSE1101 M 171 Indian River Lagoon Ft. Pierce Natural: Cold Stress Indian River 01/02/2011 MEC1102 M 171 Indian River Vero Beach Undetermined, too decomposed Brevard 01/02/2011 MEC1103 M 181 Newfound Harbor Merritt Island Natural: Cold Stress Duval 01/02/2011 MNE1101 M 245 Goodbys Creek Jacksonville Natural: Cold Stress St. Lucie 01/02/2011 MSE1102 F 208 Indian River Ft. Pierce Natural: Cold Stress Lee 01/02/2011 MSW1101 M 186 Caloosahatchee River Alva Natural: Cold Stress Charlotte 01/03/2011 LPZ102880 F 200 Peace River Punta Gorda Natural: Cold Stress Glades 01/03/2011 MSW1102 M 196 Calosahatchee River Moorehaven Undetermined, too decomposed Collier 01/03/2011 MSW1103 F 341 Faka Union Canal Port of the Islands Natural: Cold Stress Lee 01/03/2011 MSW1104 F 292 Caloosahatchee River Ft. Myers Undetermined, other Lee 01/03/2011 MSW1105 F 220 Caloosahatchee River Cape Coral Undetermined, too decomposed Collier 01/03/2011 MSW1106 M 172 Sanctuary Sound Marco Island Natural: Cold Stress Collier 01/03/2011 MSW1107 F 182 Dollar Bay Naples Natural: Cold Stress Indian River 01/04/2011 MEC1104 F 176 Indian River Sebastian Undetermined, too decomposed Indian River 01/04/2011 MEC1105 M 128 South Prong Sebastian Riv Sebastian Perinatal ( =< 150 ) Duval 01/04/2011 MNE1102 F 219 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Name Planning Unit County (-Ies) WBID Water Segment Name Number
    OGC Cycle Group Case Group Name Planning Unit County (-ies) WBID Water Segment Name Number Choctawhatchee - Little Bear Creek (South 3 3 16-0477 St. Andrews Bay Bay, Calhoun 1041 St. Andrew Fork) Choctawhatchee - 3 3 16-0479 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061A West Bay St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 3 3 16-0478 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061A West Bay St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - St Andrews Bay (North 2 3 10-0533 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061B St. Andrew Segment) Choctawhatchee - 1 3 05-1148 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061BB Carl Gray Park St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 1 3 05-1150 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061CB Beach Drive St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 3 3 16-0480 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061E St Andrew Bay (Mouth) St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 1 3 05-1151 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061EB Delwood St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 1 3 05-1152 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061F East Bay (E) St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 3 3 16-0481 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061F East Bay (East Segment) St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 1 3 05-1153 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061FB Dupont Bridge St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - North Bay (North 2 3 10-0539 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061G St. Andrew Segment1) Choctawhatchee - North Bay (North 3 3 16-0482 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061G St. Andrew Segment1) Choctawhatchee - North Bay (North 3 3 16-0483 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061H St. Andrew Segment2) Choctawhatchee - North Bay (North 3 3 16-0484 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1061H St. Andrew Segment2) Choctawhatchee - 3 3 16-0485 St. Andrews Bay Bay 1086 Mill Bayou St. Andrew Choctawhatchee - 2 3 10-0487 St.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways Vol. 2
    ative 132 er course Today, the Today, ease and im- way construc- er between Lake er between ed, dredged chan- ed, dredged ope-bending, snag- t. Lucie River and River t. Lucie ests — striving to de- tuart, on the Atlantic eautiful Island (on the eautiful Island outhwest Florida, Hatchee = Hatchee Florida, outhwest ways — have propelled devel- propelled ways — have esent waterway. estern portion of the Okeechobee front and waterwayfront uses. ofound ways.The riv its abruptly cut banks and straight-lined, ed, navigation-optimiz The Caloosahatchee [Caloosa = indigenous N It is hard to recognize from today’s Okeechobee Wa- Okeechobee from today’s to recognize is hard It ALTERING THE ALTERING CALOOSAHATCHEE FOR LAND AND WATER DEVELOPMENT Americans who inhabited S Seminole for ‘river’] is a microcosm of Southwest Florida’s of Southwest is a microcosm for ‘river’] Seminole waterways, in which multiple inter velop waterfront real estate, to create new for- land from estate, to create waterfront real velop merly overflowed swamplands, and to incr merly overflowed prove the navigable water prove opment in many pr Okeechobee (on the east) and B Okeechobee west) has been selected to illustrate the effects, both la- west) tent and direct, of land drainage and water tent and direct, tion policies on water Pre–development Geography terway — with flood-controll nel — the once meandering, shifting, r laden course of the Caloosahatchee. Caloosahatchee is the w Waterway, which stretches from which stretches S Waterway, Ocean, to San Carlos Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. and the Gulf Carlos Bay to San Ocean, The route crosses the state via the S crosses The route Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee (see Canal, Lake Okeechobee, Map 1 in the Dredging History chapter).
    [Show full text]
  • Dredging History of Southwest Florida Inland Waterways
    18 Dredging History of Southwest Florida Inland Waterways The region’s dredging history is linked to the recog- Caloosahatchee and nized advantages afforded by shipping local products to Okeechobee Waterway market on inland waterways, as well as by the desire to The earliest dredging improvements in the region, control flooding with upland drainage. Oftentimes, these which focused on the Caloosahatchee, were linked to the two objectives pitted competing and conflicting interest: land drainage schemes of Hamilton Disston and the Gulf waterway navigation versus land reclamation. As coastal Coast Canal and Okeechobee Land Co. (1881-1888). settlements were established in the late 1800s, local com- These projects were designed to develop the rich, black munities sought governmental assistance in creating in- muck-lands adjoining Lake Okeechobee by connecting land navigation routes. Prior to the extension of railroads the upper reach of the Caloosahatchee (from Lake Flirt) south of Tampa Bay, there was great interest in opening to Lake Okeechobee, and by removing a waterfall at Ft. steamboat communication across Florida. Several navi- Thompson. A federal navigation project, begun in 1883, gable routes were investigated: from Jacksonville, via the improved the downstream reach of the river by creating a St. John’s River, then by way of Topokalija Lake (now 7-feet-deep by 100-feet-wide channel over the Gulf bar called Lake Tohopekaliga) to Charlotte Harbor; and down at the river’s mouth below Punta Rassa and through the the Kissimmee River and Caloosahatchee to Ft. Myers. oyster shoals to Ft. Myers. In 1910, this channel was en- With a surge in interest following the Civil War to larged to a depth of 12 feet and a width of 200 feet.
    [Show full text]